DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS VA MEDICAL CENTER MOUNTAIN HOME, TENNESSEE AND LOCAL 1687, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

United States of America

BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES
PANEL

In the Matter of

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

VA MEDICAL CENTER

MOUNTAIN HOME, TENNESSEE

AND

LOCAL 1687, AMERICAN FEDERATION

OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
AFL-CIO

Case No. 96 FSIP 152

DECISION AND ORDER

Local 1687, American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Union) filed a request for assistance with the
Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel) to consider a negotiation impasse under
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute), 5 U.S.C. §
7119, between it and the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Medical Center,
Mountain Home, Tennessee (Employer).

Following an investigation of the
request for assistance, which involves the placement of two picnic tables on the
grounds of the VA Medical Center, the Panel determined that the dispute should
be resolved through written submissions from the parties. Thereafter, the Panel
would take whatever action it deemed appropriate to resolve the impasse,
including the issuance of a Decision and Order. Written submissions were
made pursuant to this procedure, and the Panel has now considered the entire
record.

BACKGROUND

The Employer is responsible for providing quality
health care to veterans and their dependents. Approximately 1,385 people work in
the Medical Center, 1,150 of whom are bargaining-unit employees. These employees
work as nurses, doctors, dieticians, and social workers. They are General
Schedule (GS) and Wage Grade (WG) employees ranging in grade from GS-3 through
-13 and WG-2 through -11. The local supplemental agreement between the parties
expired in 1973 and has been rolled over each of the subsequent years; the
parties have recently completed negotiations for a successor master agreement.

ISSUE

The sole issue in dispute is whether two additional
picnic tables should be placed on the grounds of the VA Medical Center.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. The Union’s Position

The Union proposes that "two picnic tables be
placed on the grounds beside building 200 for use by employees." The tables
are needed because 15 to 20 employees from the Nutrition and Food Service (NFS)
regularly eat lunch and take smoking breaks in that area, and they do not have
anything to sit on except either a masonry wall or the ground. The cost of
purchasing the picnic tables would be relatively inexpensive.(1) For many years
before the Canteen dining area was built, the NFS employees have taken breaks
outside their normal work areas. In this regard, the employees also choose not
to eat in the Canteen because they cannot afford to do so.

In the alternative, "[t]he Union would urge the
adoption of at least a trial period of placement for the picnic tables with
specific criteria being offered for evaluation of the situation in 90
days." This alternative proposal would enable the parties to evaluate
advantages and disadvantages of placing picnic tables below the Canteen patio
area. In particular, the parties could monitor the area to determine whether
their use has resulted in a rat problem.

2. The Employer’s Position

The Employer argues that the parties should maintain
the status quo, and that the Union should be ordered to withdraw its
proposal. It would not be cost-effective to add two picnic tables at the
proposed location because they would be in close proximity to the Medical Center’s
Canteen patio and dining area. The Medical Center spent "a lot of money
building this structure," and the patio area provides sufficient seating
for employees to eat their meals. More importantly, the picnic tables may not
even be accessible to employees from May 1997 to November 1999, due to a major
construction project which is likely to require storage of the contractor’s
equipment in that area. By encouraging employees to eat outside, the picnic
tables could also exacerbate a rat problem, and be burdensome to the
grounds-keeping employees who would be required to maintain the area. In
addition, the presence of employees eating and loitering within sight of the
mobile MRI van stationed nearby may not reflect the best image of the Medical
Center.

CONCLUSION

Having carefully considered the evidence and
arguments presented by the parties, we conclude that the Union’s proposal
provides the more reasonable resolution of this dispute. In our view, the
benefits to employees provided by the two picnic tables would outweigh the costs
to the Employer. It is undisputed that employees already eat in the proposed
location and that the cost of procuring the tables would be minimal. Moreover,
the record evidence does not support the Employer’s contention that the picnic
tables would trigger a rat problem, nor do we find that inordinate difficulties
for the grounds-keeping employees would be created. Finally, assuming that
construction begins in May 1997, the tables could be stored until the project is
completed. Accordingly, we shall order the adoption of the Union’s proposal.

ORDER

Pursuant to the authority vested in it by the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7119, and
because of the failure of the parties to resolve their dispute during the